TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
AU - van Nieuwkerk, Astrid C.
AU - Santos, Raquel B.
AU - Fernandez-Nofrerias, Eduard
AU - Tchétché, Didier
AU - de Brito, Fabio S.
AU - Barbanti, Marco
AU - Kornowski, Ran
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - D'Onofrio, Augusto
AU - Ribichini, Flavio
AU - Mainar, Vicente
AU - Dumonteil, Nicolas
AU - Baan, Jan
AU - Abizaid, Alexandre
AU - Sartori, Samantha
AU - D'Errigo, Paola
AU - Tarantini, Giuseppe
AU - Lunardi, Mattia
AU - Orvin, Katia
AU - Pagnesi, Matteo
AU - Larraya, Garikoitz Lasa
AU - Ghattas, Angie
AU - Dangas, George
AU - Mehran, Roxana
AU - Delewi, Ronak
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2022/6/1
Y1 - 2022/6/1
N2 - The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.
AB - The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127860316&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85127860316&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.02.028
DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.02.028
M3 - Article
C2 - 35351288
AN - SCOPUS:85127860316
SN - 0002-9149
VL - 172
SP - 81
EP - 89
JO - American Journal of Cardiology
JF - American Journal of Cardiology
ER -